What's a good definition of LitRPG?

Haha, you didn't have to edit your reply. It wasn't rude.

I feel the conflict here is with the community and expectations.

Let's say Mr. Popular grabbed an orange rock (yes, I'll use your example, even if you deleted it, lol). Lots of people liked the orange rock. Others thought it was so cool, they found their own orange rocks.

The only problem is, some of these orange rocks had white stripes, or were chipped, or not quite the same shape, or size. At first, everyone was pretty receptive. Those are all pretty great rocks! I mean, at least they are orange, even if they weren't identical.

However, as rock popularity grew, some people wanted to be a bit different. Not a whole lot. They still have a rock, it's roughly the same size and shape, though just a tinge different in color. Instead of orange, it was a bit too red.

Upon revealing their amazing rock that they spent all a fortnight searching for, the community of orange rocks sat in silent disgust. "That's not an orange rock!" Well, orange is really just a bit of red and yellow... and this here rock has a bit more red than yellow.

Death to the red rock! A stoning--of orange rocks--happens, and the community moves on.

So, now we have two communities. Those of orange rocks and those of red rocks. The red rocks are sour because they think their rocks are pretty awesome. They'd like to be apart of the whole community and feel that they bring about new ideas in rock colors that the other community won't hear.

People get banned, rocks get destroyed, dreams smashed, and stealth review ninjas give terrible reviews, sneaking in the phrase, "Not an orange rock, 1-star."

So, a particularly smart group of people gathered to discuss the problem. Ah-hem. They discuss and discuss and discuss to eventually devise an interesting conclusion, "Orange rocks didn't come first, it was really Red and Yellow rocks." And, "This rock thing has actually existed decades before Mr. Popular picked up the first orange rock."

---

Anyway, I got carried away. The point of the matter is, we're here to define the genre to be fair and accepting of unique ideas. And by doing so, we help craft what's acceptable so that authors who bring about unique and creative stories aren't massacred by orange rocks.

Paul's efforts here are already helping. Our accepted definition has been pushed out to numerous websites, including Wikipedia, all of which enforce our agreed upon version of what LitRPG is. My efforts going forward is to understand the genre from the readers' perspective instead of the authors' and see where the genre can grow.

 

Haha. Thank you for the laugh. you sir are better at words than i am.
I believe that for myself the argument..is silly. But that comes from my own perspective. Not having a vested interest so to speak.

As for giving 1 star reviews based on a subjective opinion of something as silly as what genre a book belongs to? And not based on the quality of the book itself? That..Pardon my language..Is just chicken shit.

edit..... Thanks for mentioning the wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LitRPG

Have to agree 100% with the definition listed.

 

The third section of floor 1 in the first Office Wars is based off Zelda. Might be an easter egg for some people. The pattern to escape the hallways is the same pattern to escape the forest in the first Zelda. And a note signed by Licoln 'Linc' Adlez Link and Adlez is Zelda backwards. I think there was something else to hint at it, a poster I think. I might have removed that part though. Even threw in a Compass for fun.

 

Damn you @James G Patton, I wrote a massive write up (inbetween disconnects) about those bloody rocks! But here are some more over the top samples of the "war of the rocks", and why I feel like such a dork when writing about this stuff. I could have kept things loosy goosy, but I went epic, which increasingly feels like hubris.

I can assure you I don't overlook the subjective, but I ignore it with the very strong presumption that those vocal about "The Standard" of LitRPG are a tiny minority of a total audience that would be receptive to stories other than that which qualify beneath "The Standard."

From my own writings:

Intro on the topic of "Games"
<Unlike Literary Fiction which is recursively unpredictable, the predictable was what helped those who brought Science Fiction to its more venerated status today.> So while Science Fiction too was forged by those who saw the potential in their own futurist sermons when joined together with entertaining adventures, LitRPG is an even more-so amorphous and hard to place entity when viewed through the lens of the uninitiated.

<Amorphous not because the path of any such game-based title is unpredictable or incomprehensible, but because its lessons are intuitive and the acceptance of the "merit" of such a story will always reside with its readers. The value of a Science Fiction story which anticipates the predictable is that it can create any number of opinions: its value is imparted from its creation. The value of a LitRPG story which anticipates its own enjoyment is a value decided dependent on its reception.>

In truth LitRPG should not belong to the subgenre of Fantasy, Science Fiction, or Science Fantasy. It should belong to a standalone genre beneath both Fiction and Non-Fiction in the same way that history and religion are full fledged disciplines and genres in their own right. However it should not be direct neighbors with either of the previously mentioned genres; as it is a genre subordinate to a yet to exist category called simply: Games.


Chp 1 Pt 0
LitRPG stories, like Sports stories, have a built in goal of entertainment. The game stories require positive reception at the very least from their own author for some value to be derived from its creation. Otherwise the stories are a con job, a cash grab, something people might enjoy between the big games, but something that will leave those with limited time and resources feeling beat out of their loyalty and cash. Just like the sports fans doomed to cheer for less than stellar home teams, those who have no chance at a greater victory can still appreciate a well played game. Even when the teams playing, and winning, aren't their favored champions.

The potential of those who rule the arena is always limited by the constraints placed on the contestants in regards to acceptable play. The rules themself provide aspects of arbitrary skill that would not be present in an actual gladiatorial arena; which might favor only the fastest, strongest, and most competently violent. The rules of the game don't limit the potential of the players, they provide the very benchmark for greatness.

A brief moment of magic displayed by a perpetually losing team doesn't undo all the stolen away hours filled with frustration. It does however reconfirm the faith of the fans in the merit of their chosen entertainment. It made them feel, very briefly, free. In those joyful moments an irrational and time defying feeling washes over the fan, and they forget all the things that really matter. They forget how many points they are down by, they forget that even if they win they won't make it to the big culmination tournament. They can't conceptualize failure and defeat when in the throws of vicarious competition, because in those moments of conflict, failure is irrelevant. They are freed from oppressive realities.

The game players, and their fans, can only move forward.

Even though the goal is deterministic, as there exists an absolute and linear path to the finish line when such games are viewed through a reductionist lens; living in a moment of competitive suspense is living in a universe where the fatalistic goals and victory itself don't matter. As with sex, ultimate victory is still a let down compared to the moments just before a gambits completion.

Perversely then, the frustration of the other team's efforts to win is considered a victory for the team already in the lead. Being on top, to keep with the thrust of the metaphor, provides no adequate buffer against the innate desire of humans to reach the finish line as a winner: topping from the bottom is a myth when a competition is zero sum, unless one comes in first at the last second.

...

Pyrrhic victories allow the losing side to feel a momentary reprieve after a rush of exultation; at the cost of the reductionist goal all parties knew at the outset of battle. Such celebration is, definitively, premature.

Because in some arenas, the victory that leaves your opponents unable to ever rise up again is the only victory; and so over time we have modified the conditions of both battle and victory. Thus while battle in zero sum competitions might have the same odds as a coin toss, when one has no choice except to fight an aggressor, the unwilling participants are then forced into a scenario where they didn't choose victory – it was simply the only path left. Were we to sacrifice our rules in service to a final reprieve from conflict, at the cost of our humanity and with no elation to be gained from any stage of progress when executing the endeavor; then men and women acting in such a way could fairly be described as: Not playing around.

At the root of the resistance to entertainment, and the resistance to all entertainment which forces the un-fun into battles where they might look like fools for resisting fun in the first place, and in the process/offing gain only a pyrrhic victory: is the fear of even odds, and the hatred of rules which guarantee only equality of opportunity. All competitors forced into a game with their exact equals will not desire to participate in a coin toss when participation is synonmous with defeat.

Those that enjoy games are then the people who drag others down to our own level, and beat them with experience. When those contemptuous of sports and games have as competitors those whose victories over them can not be ascribed to greater experience with idiocy or lack of mental acuity, then the lack of talent on the contemptuous person's own part is purely attributeable to non-participation and a refusal to learn from any experience already gained from past defeats.

Those whom disapprove of all fun that does not benefit them, and who also refuse to participate or recognize fun that they have experienced, are as meaningless an opposing force to encounter as could be wished for. Opposition that requires not capitulation and the suspension of activities until a universal concensus might be reached about what is acceptable, but defiance and the repeated challenge of confrontation in ones favored arena while continuing to live as joyfully as ones own condition and responsibilities allow.

Those who choose to live by arbitrary rules are not those seeking a genocide against the joyful.

They are the persons striving to achieve an arbitrary standard as set forth by a game or sport for success, or a person who has set their own standards from which they derive joy that benefits none other than themselves.

In addition to the resistance to equal opportunity of success between equals within meaningless and meaningful arenas, there exists the entitlement to entertainment and joy which best suits an individual viewer and which provides pleasure incommisserate with its investment.

As all the games that critics desire will forever remain speculative as long as it remains entertainment which only a critic could desire. As creation does not spring forth from negative parameters which might only outline that which the joyful should not be, and until some objective that may be achieved is defined then made explicit in its form and function for execution, there remains only the core of the efforts which drew criticism in the first place:

That a sport or game should exist that entertains, that is also profitable for those who have no desire to participate in it, invest in it, or support it.

Should those totally unrelated criteria be met, then the entertainment will be tolerated as long as it does not interfere with the lives of those who disapprove of fun altogether. ...

Orthagonal inconveniences that are outside the purview of the passionate and loyal then can be wholly dismissed, and the actual nature of games, and competition, should be explored without thought to the merit of the endeavor: but forever mindful of the eventual reception of the product.

&&&

I just wanted to write about "What is LitRPG", and originally my only concern was with defending my own story which is a VRMMO, but thats impossible as long as all the "subjective" bullshit I disagree with is used as a criteria with which to bludgeon me for questioning "The Standard". And another longer rant incoming now... all pre-written because I've dced about 30 times in 3 hours.

edit: epic rant was actually 16k characters... update pending, but it looks like Dustin already has the right attitude and that wasn't conveyed in his first post about the whatislitrpg website. >.> regardless the rant must see light!

 

I get that people want simple definitions, and concensus, but the more I've dug into the topic, the more resistant to simplification the genre has become. Which was exactly what I assumed to be the case when I set out.

In the book I'm comparing a peyote trip and spirit journey to an augmented reality game. A Mayan dream-world experienced by a priestess to virtual reality. How are the rules of a fantasy world that exactly mimics sensory experiences that can translate to VR/AR titles different from a game other than their stakes? And dont' we already accept both actual games and non-game game-world based stories with life and death stakes as part of the genre?

VR and AR in different realities, on different worlds, and in different eras, will be informed by things in far different ways than what we consider the natural progression of gaming. Even shortening the window in which our games developed (as I do in my own story (that someday I'll hopefully finish)), changes the culture and application of gaming. From putting up a quarter to claim nexties, to blowing on the cartridge or cleaning the disk: and thats in anticipation of a "good" and uninterrupted game session.

The main problem I've identified in my own experience of tackling the subject is that open ended worlds meant to be developed by players don't qualify as LitRPG when they aren't full of immersion breaking non-sensical arbitrary bullshit purely related to game interfaces and not game mechanics or game physics. Because whats the point of role-playing in a game-world with totally open ended experiences and exploration?

Watch Asian RPG full CGI cutscene, do numbers float above enemies heads most of the time after attacks? Do they spend three turns charging an ability while exactly three rounds of combat are carried out by the other combatants? RPGs are almost always meant to represent a fantastical reality, not a game one. Demanding game features exactly similar to the RPGs of the 80s, 90s and 2000s (while block-buster titles in America & Japan are becoming more ARPGish) seems to skip a logical step in justifying such a "Game Reality" conversion to VR, and while I enjoy it, its always felt off for a supposedly future looking Genre.

If Armor Class and Armor Rating exists within a truely free game that only attempts to facilitate player skill by allowing "quick" access to abilities and items (so if you want to find food rations, palliative draughts, or a healing potion, you don't have to upend your bags when time is an issue, or have a limited use "potion belt" etc), then taking three pieces of high quality magic leather and bulking up could potentially provide three times the DEF rating of un-enchanted un-imbued steel-plate. "You can't do that because you can't wear more than one piece of armor!" Doesn't allow for a "free" hand in a world where people can make their own armor, where armor making has little in the way of rules except lore limitations, and where people can change or equip armor manually, or fast swap it as a boon of a class (like spell casters) or from special (but rare) accessory bags.

Take three square sheets of the best quality silk available in a fantasy game, sew them together, leave them free floating, or imbue and enchant the pieces and stack them in alternating order. Now hit every stack with the same exact force and see if a pane of glass/egg shells beneath were protectored or not and to what degree. In a totally free world, a scientific test at least in regards to recording and quantifying data would need to be devised to test the defensive rating of all manner of the best available player crafting items. Or, instead of that, the game can just tell you exactly how to do everything and what precise boons an item crafted can have in every possible scenario a player can conceive in a VR world with Game Physics. If you think my writing isn't geared towards LitRPG fans, wait until they see the item window for that game that displays any relevant amount of information.

Magic systems remain arbitrary, and so while yes it does make sense for a certain amount of game physics mitigating potency to be applied to armor from a magic buff or a pre-crafted piece of equipment made by game designers, just purely from the "Defensive" side of things there is a hell of a lot more in play in a physics world than a RNG based formula world.

Like monster attack potency, which MMO games have gotten around by introducing level based damage formulas for monster attacks and player defense, that makes armor used against a level 1 giant by a level 5 player godly, while the same giant fist from a level 10 giant against a level 5 player is a 1 hit KO. Mechanics implemented just to work around the player "DEF" stat and provide a challenge.

Apply the above this to VR player abilities, would a game based system of passive defensive abilities like dodge, parry, and riposte, make any sense when fighting the giant whose fist is bigger than a player? Standing in place and relying on passive abilities or chain cast heals is far fetched, and so in my own game world I opted not to include such abilities that I considered to be meant to provide a "facsimile" of skill. Whether for a player or a raid force which should adapt to an enemy's strengths.

I also have spell and item based omni-haste and attack haste, with a crap ton of hidden condition based hastes; dodge-haste for tank and leather types where evading attacks provides hidden class or item mechanics, swing haste for weapon attacks, run-speed haste etc, players know they have these boons because they become faster. The need for an interface in a world meant to be totally immersive seems like another non-logical step meant to satisfy those that like such mechanics more than they enjoy fantasy stories that create the exact same systems but with complete sentences rather than limited formula-game based item windows.

Part of the reason for this system (in my own world) is to provide veteran players from pre-VR titles with veteran advantages in VR titles: as there should be a transition between the games and mechanics we know today and full immersion VR. People that played a game series through all its evolutions (and that remember the game mechanics and lore), will have a massive leg up compared to Day One players in their first RPG. I don't have a problem with that, in the same way I don't have a problem with a no levels and no (overt) stat game system. Some people want to play as Avatars in a game balanced around limited physical mechanics, I think the future is one where people have the option to play as themselves, with all the disadvantages and advantages that entails. A game where experience is literally experience. It doesn't mean people have to play as themselves if they feel that is a limitation, but it should be an option, and in my LitRPG world, its the culturally dominant position.

The problem with saying any of this absent a complete and total breakdown of literally everything I've written in my story, outside of my story in a supplemental game text perfectly portable to a pen & paper RPG, is that its perfectly concise to say, "Using an identify spell shouldn't necessarily require a game interface and status windows." Such a statement however requires I be willing to defend and explain the position.

Explaining why variations of Game Interface, Game Mechanics, and Game Physics are totally open ended requires that one presume the dominant position of the "That isn't LitRPG!" crowd. A crowd that has put, as far as I can tell, zero thought into their premise. As Final Fantasy CGI cutscenes provide evidence that what they want isn't what game mechanics are even suppose to represent.

I don't want to write about what is intuitive to me in a way that requires I go searching for material to justify my gut-level opinion and that allows for textbook-like answers to a question that I can answer by saying, "Yes, my shit is LitRPG too." My preference is (in spite of word blocks around here that might serve as evidence to the contrary), spit-balling. I've forgotten a lot of the "lore" rules for my own world even though I've recorded how something works if not why, and it doesn't take much effort to go "Oh it works because..." and then later I find a note somewhere that proves I am in fact a total bullshitter: even when just thinking to myself. =P

But my thinking on the topic (after much frustration and searching for answers) remains that pretty much anything can be LitRPG, especially those stories expressed with physical sensations and emotional reactions. I just call those stories that aren't explicitly a game world, but that do provide internal logic (as opposed to concrete real world physics logic), "Lore" titles.

I think the second any sufficiently popular "Lore" or LitRPG story gains traction, an exponential amount of adaptations will occur that incorporate those "good" features. I also think that any story that utilizes the good features to create a story that is purely competitive as entertainment rather than as trend-setting for "Games" in its own right, also remains LitRPG.

However I think that eventually LitRPG itself will be an overarching designation with few "pure" titles to its name. As Only Sense Online is the only popular story I know of where the game world is played purely for fun by the player, though the "Job" stories work as well. Introducing life and death stakes, pain, and more psychically damaging experiences like torture, rape, and violence in a story; immediately relegates such a game title to the subgenre of "LitRPG Lore" as far as I'm concerned.

Graphic violence and sexual intimacy in a game will limit its audience, period. Tweaking such games to allow players aged 14+ or 16+, and to be accepted in China and the Middle East or other more conservative nations to maximize international revenue... those are problems faced by real games today.

 

I've been able to define the genre to my own satisfaction, but I hate to be the one to break this to people who haven't yet reached similar conclusions on the topic, but Games and Game economies are going to be hopelessly bureaucratic and boring: and not at all simple.

Cutting the Red Tape and getting to the fun is what should be the status quo, but unfortunately we have the "That isn't LitRPG" crowd railing against that which is boring but plausible, and to be honest, I no longer really care to know what they think about what my game world should be. At this point I'm just hoping to provide others with the ammunition to confidently ignore what is irrelevant to their hobby, whether reading or gaming. As I'm not actually against what some want to claim as exclusively LitRPG, I'm just against the exclusiveness and uncritical implementation of their standard.

To me we are probably nearing a best case scenario, which is the "Golden Era" of LitRPG similar to the golden era of Sci-fi with its so-called "Hard" sci-fi. Except I think what makes LitRPG heading into its golden era is the lack of restraint of the game world that others from the future will accept as totally logical. Most of our stories today with Life & Death stakes in what amount to open world VR sims would be considered black market shit in the future I'm sure. The fact that anyone thinks a profitable amount of people would voluntarily play in a game with pain 1:1 with real life, but in VR platforms, is bonkers.

Its also fun...

That lack of bureaucratic constraint (which nerds like me will inject into the Genre regardless of the consequences), is what will hopefully drive the acceptance of "meta-game & meta-simulation themes" as a subgenre, and make LitRPG Lore a viable all encompassing standard.

I don't really care about every intermediate step the genre is going to transition through as people democratically assent to the definition, viability, and acceptability of the constraints of the genre: much like a D&D group consents to modify their entire pre-established universe based on how the dice stop. I also don't want to be the GM or DM.

I just want to create and write, and invite others to do the same. I've already got my definition, and my predictions, and now I just have to get it into a format that can be shared. Like you said, I am trying to "fit it together like a puzzle", but I'm starting from a position that I would never approach any other problem from, and that is one where I don't wholly dismiss people that disagree with me as idiots. An expedient solution when, as I am in the process of doing, I can actually write a god damn book on the topic when those that disagree feel no such compulsion and act as though the relevant material to performing such a feat doesn't exist or wouldn't adequately constrain the genre to their narrow view.

I am literally writing to defend the amorphous nature of LitRPG which can accept practically anything as LitRPG. Just like Sci-Fi and Fantasy can be literally anything one can imagine within those genres few rules, and the only definition that should matter is that something is "game-like." Which just means there are rules, and is why there probably needs to be a Games genre which an author can specifically place their story in to avoid the appropriation of their worlds as something other than what they intended. As not everyone likes games or considers them to be other than time wasting, and as often already happens, many authors avoid the Sci-Fi label to achieve greater "serious" Literary and Commercial success.

But because the history of this genre apparently starts with Korean & Japanese stories, and not in the 1980s based on D&D and text input games, everyone has to make the same illogical leap about the persistence of video game RPG features meant to provide fun and excitement into the future, impertuity and with no regard to the actual history of Role Playing Games.

No matter how irrelevant I've come to feel the "That isn't LitRPG!" crowd is in regards to the future of "Games", as they'll tag along if the dissenting writers prove more popular and equally fun, no one should have to tolerate those who ignore history to replace it with a false account that better supports their preferences.

I'll contribute where I can around here, but I think if Tolkien adhered to the majority concensus about his writing we wouldn't have Middle Earth or the worlds inspired by Middle Earth.

I would highly recommend you approach your "What is LitRPG?" endeavor from a community "temperature" checking position rather than a definitive one... as sometimes the "wisdom of the masses" is predicated on a permanent suspicion of impending doom causing reactive behavior, or a time constraint that forces an immediate estimation rather than a measured guess. At least if the results don't match your desire, you can keep the project going and see overtime what is "hot" and what is "cold" to a hopefully relevant sample of participants.

I'm not trying to be like the UK or EU banning non-certified trading advisors including crowd-sourced trend investing, based on real peoples actions and not algorithms, as my position is that there is room for everyone. A position I hold because as of right now, I lose nothing from others being successful.

As for the "Gatekeepers" of the genre, I think its fair to say that they do profit from the status quo at the expense of others. An opinion I hold that is adversarial and requires explanation, otherwise I'm just being an asshole because I can't get my way. An opinion increasingly amplified the more I've delved into "The Community" run by those who make zero effort to be other than bureaucratic. The "Standard" isn't just unopen to interpretation, its standard bearers are resistant to debate while being banally subservient and prideful about their subordinate position to "The Standard."

I've caught up to Ep 50 of the LitRPG podcast, and I have to say I am sick of hearing Ramon say, "Sorry, <whoever>, but this isn't LitRPG." Even if its true to my own standard, I can't trust "The Community" at any turn because I don't agree with their definition, and at this point I think they value something being LitRPG (to "The Standard") too heavily compared to it being a quality work or innovative.

Here at least, I don't think that's a minority position.

edit: weird this is the wrong iteration... oh well

 

Haha, you called me out, but I think you confused me with Dustin. He took the same avatar as me haha. I haven't responded except shallowly recently.

I will say I am of two minds. One I do agree with you that a general classification is needed, but not LitRPG. On the other side I do believe that people will always relate LitRPG to the Skill menus/systems. Hate to say it, but I do it too because it is how I was introduced to the genre. That said, I would never give some one a bad review based on that. I would review solely based on the book, but truthfully it might not make it that far because I probably would not finish reading it. Not because I did not enjoy it, but I read books with the skill ups, menus, etc. for enjoyment and research. I just don't have time for any other kind of reading at the moment.

I have one simple reasoning for it, and that is if you add too many colored rocks into a genre and then have to worry about an overgrown amalgamation that becomes so diluted it loses its goal or purpose. If LitRPG encompassed everything from Portal Fantasy to Cyberpunk that was loosely based on a game, then I would no longer use LitRPG in searches or to even define a book by, because it loses its distinction. A new term would be born, and then the cycle repeats.

This goes along with expectation and marketing too. If people are expecting a product and they are not getting it, then it ruins the ability to be used as a marketing tool. At that point, we would be safer by labeling our books as Cyberpunk and moving on.

You have good ideas, and you have thought it out fairly thoroughly. My advice is to start your gaming genre (I'm still partial to RPG Fiction, but I'm not the one putting the effort into building the entire structure).

Anyway, I am on vacation, and just thought I'd check in. Spent the day at Cocoa Beach, at least until we were run off by lightning.

 

I have tremendous excitement for writing many novels set in game worlds. It's about the what-if scenarios. It's about exploring creativity, art, and entertainment.

Writing is fun. I'm driven to create story. To build drama and excitement and wonder in people. I've sacrificed a six-figure salary and moved to an old apartment with terrible cooling in the middle of summer. Dripping sweat on the keyboard, I write. It's because that's who I am, and to live any other way would be a lie.

While reading your replies, it hit me. A fundamental realization. Like I've been underwater and had just broken the tranquil surface, sucking in air, clueless why I'd stay under so long that my lungs burned.

I don't need LitRPG. I don't need the red-tape, politics, self-appointed fathers, egotism, and elitism. I don't need arbitrary rules.

When you feel compelled out of fear to change your story to fit the /standard/ or be crucified, your work suffers for it. You suffer as a creative chained to the rules of someone else.

Long before I heard whispers of this genre, I wanted to write about stories that took place in full immersion virtual reality and game/game-like worlds.

My realization boils down to one simple fact: I can write anything I want.

In the end, I believe that LitRPG has a /standard/. I believe it's entirely subjective. I also believe my stories don't fit this subjective definition despite being close.

I'd rather leave LitRPG than have someone else dictate how I should write my books. They can find me in Science Fiction.

Instead of building WhatIsLitRPG.com (@Paul Bellow, if you want the domain, let me know), and instead of debating among other red-rock owners, I need to do the one thing that's very important to me: write. Everything else is just a distraction.

 

In the end, as with every genre, it will be the readers and not the authors, the publishers or the distributors that will determine what "is" and "is not". I can't think of an example that has gone the other way, unless we are talking about some hardcore literary high-muckety-muck genre that only has a reader base made up of other authors.

Write the story you need to write. If it's good, we all just have to trust that the readers will find it.

 

For me the "subjective" standard is the same as the game standard for what is "good", its up every persons tastes, and it shouldn't make you lose any sleep.

The fun thing about arbitrary rules is that they can be your rules! I've written elsewhere on here that a crazy fantastical story can still be LitRPG even if its "rules" aren't applicable for those characters and players that would be considered rank and file goons, and so even if your story is crazy out there, it would be more like writing from the perspective of an NPC or group of legendary NPCs deeply immersed in the foundational lore of a future game world.

I think there is value to the idea you had for the Whatislitrpg domain, but based on your writing you seemed overly concerned about others perspectives so hopefully I haven't demoralized you... that is literally the opposite of my goal which is just to get people to stop saying, "That isn't LitRPG!" and to instead say, "Thats not my favorite type of LitRPG story." Like people that are always trying to get others to play Hearthstone or MOBAs... after they complain about "bullshit" when playing them.

edit: wrote this up hours back I think and never hit submit, forum drafts ftw

 

So, I was a bit caught up in the moment last night... lol.

To clarify my point and my understanding. LitRPG exists. It has a strong following that holds true to a subjective definition of what LitRPG is. If you /claim/ to be LitRPG and don't match up perfectly, you'll get the, "Not a LitRPG," stamped on your book.

I do feel that the subjective definition will change over time. However, I also feel that genres are for readers and marketers. I don't need to include LitRPG on my cover, title, or book blurb to attract those who like stories set in game worlds.

That's a big realization for me. That all I have to do is write the stories I want to write, true to my vision of the story, and let the readers accept them as LitRPG if they choose to.

I can tell Amazon without telling readers that I think those who like LitRPG would like my books. I can target people who use the term LitRPG to market my books. Though I never have to publicly say my books are LitRPG.

This avoids the need to follow rules. This avoids the fear of publishing to an audience that often asks for something different, though also smashes anything that's a red-rock. And I can take a firm step out of the politicking, and just focus on what I'm really here to do: write.

No worries Matthew, you didn't discourage me. I think I just remembered back to when writing was about creativity, not forcing my narrative into a cookie-cutter mold. It's fine if your story fits the mold already, though entirely painful if it doesn't.

I do think WhatIsLitRPG.com could be beneficial to the community. However, I also realized that to build it the way I imagined would take the same amount of effort and time to write a novel. We already know what the core wants; just look at the best selling LitRPG.

All of these realizations are great. It takes a weight off my chest. It lets writing be fun again. I'm excited to write my story and think about how I /wanted/ it to be instead of how others may want it to be.

 

The beautiful thing about Amazon is that as an author, people can get exposed to any and all books you write. If the current books do not meet market expectation, don't change them. However you could write something later that could be tagged that way. Not to mention if you ask the admins on certain sites explaining your book, you could still market to them.

I think you are fine using LitRPG as long as you are upfront with the reader about why you think it is LitRPG then you will be fine. The only point I was making was not about whether or not your book has the other stuff, but about expectation. I apologize if I came off negatively. I was more or less just saying to set the expectation before people read your book. I think you will find people will be much more receptive of the book.

Sufficiently Advanced Magic is one of those types of book. Most would not call it LitRPG but the author states that up front while promoting it. It is one of those gray area books. I've read the book and thought it was really good, but I went into it knowing I was not going to have the skill up menus and my expectation of the book was not skewed.

I was not trying to discourage you. I was just trying to point out that labels are bigger than just a way to tag a book. It is also part of an author's ability to market and advertise a book to a reader. They need to be distinct to be useful. If I tag my book as a Cook Book and readers find out it is gag book about cannibalism, I am pretty sure they are going to get upset with me. Even if I give them legitimate recipes on how to cook humans, you know a little bit of lemon zest, garlic butter sealed in aluminum foil and thrown on the grill for about five minutes on each side, they are going to probably give me a 1 star review. If I labeled it as a Joke Book, it might get a better reception.

Anyway, if you were upset with what I said, I apologize. Write for yourself first, I know I do. I follow the philosophy that if it is good and readers like it, they will follow me and read whatever I write. First I need to build up that reader base though haha.

 

@James G Patton

I would like to apologize to any of you who thought I was upset. I think this community is great, and I've not had any problems with any members here.

If I express any frustration, it is either for myself or for other people in the general community. Such as the one who calls himself father. Or people who 1-star books for not being enough one style of LitRPG over another. Or the groups that won't allow you to promote your book because it doesn't fit their definition of the genre. That's a major point that motivated the creation of this thread by @Conor Kostick. His book was turned away for not being LitRPG when many of us would consider it LitRPG, especially given our new definition of the genre. It's that stuff that upsets me.

You have many good points. Setting the expectation early is important. It's part of why I feel sub-genres of LitRPG should be recognized. If the reader understands how you deviated from the standard path, the promise will match the expectation and everything should be fine.

With that understood, I'd like my books to stand on their own. I want to discover my own audience. I'm sure that audience will include LitRPG readers, and I hope to gain a following that's not LitRPG readers.

Lastly, even though I can set an expectation, I feel that I may still have to defend my work from the other hard-core members/communities. That's why I wanted to build WhatIsLitRPG.com, though then I'm spending all my time defending my work instead of creating it.

... Nothing wrong with a good human cookbook. Just saying.

 

Yup, that's pretty much my plan going forward. This way, I tell Amazon that I think those who like LitRPG would like my book. And I honestly believe that.

 

I actually used LitRPG in my Amazon title. I wasn't aware that it was a taboo thing to do. Back in the early days when I wrote in another genre, I included a subtitle in parenthesis that had what subgenre my book fell under. It usually helped readers find my book so they would know what kind of stuff they were getting with their purchase. For my next book I will probably skip out on putting LitRPG in the title if it gets the title viewed negatively.

 

In my opinion, if your books fit well with the core of LitRPG books, then including LitRPG in the title is likely fine. I wouldn't for my books because they may not fit exactly to what people are expecting. I believe it does help people find your book though. However, if you can also just include LitRPG as a keyword, that may be better.

 

I know I am biased towards my own definition but I think it might be worth considering using the term soft LitRPG, its immediately intuitive a casual reader will know its not part of the main core books but will still know some of what to expect, I think it might wind up being a way of saying my book is one of those grey area books and adding soft to it will hopefully a swage the Not LitRPGers ire.
PS:
I am a strong believer that what a genre is and means can change I think your subtle way of calling your book LitRPG works. I think it is important to include your books to a genre because if they stand on there own eventually they will be what people read first and the more stats based ones wont I am not saying they will be irrelevent they just wont be the only thing being considered LitRPG.

 

@Matthew James im worried that your 3 long comments might turn some newcomers off of the thread is there a way you could summerize it up top I do agree with you on the point and it made me think about a lot of things I hadn't considered